Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Aides Deny Getting Plan to Fight Al Qaeda [Another 'BUSH-KNEW!!' campaign]
Reuters via WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, August 5, 2002

Posted on 08/05/2002 5:10:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - The Bush White House denied a report on Sunday that the Clinton administration gave it an aggressive plan to take on al Qaeda that languished for eight months because of the change in presidents.

Time Magazine reported on Sunday that a plan to strike at al Qaeda was developed in the final days of the Clinton administration and presented to President Bush's new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in January 2001.

Irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest the Bush administration may not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people and that the government blames on the al Qaeda network, the White House issued a carefully-worded denial.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al Qaeda during the transition," White House spokesman Sean McCormack told Reuters in Kennebunkport, Maine, where Bush spent the weekend at his parents' summer home.

According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House.

The draft initiative became the victim of the transition between the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Bush, the magazine said, as the Bush White House instituted its own "policy review process" on the terrorist threat and the proposals outlined by Clarke were not reviewed by top officials until late April.

Time said Clarke's proposals called for the breakup of al Qaeda cells and arrest of their personnel, a systematic attack on the financial support for its terrorist activities and for aid to nations where al Qaeda was operating to fight terrorism. Clarke also wanted an increase in covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the al Qaeda sanctuary provided by the Taliban.

ELIMINATE AL QAEDA, NOT ROLL IT BACK

The White House acknowledged that it reviewed the matter but insisted it did not receive any actual plan and said the strategy its top officials ultimately approved on Sept. 4 -- one week before Sept. 11 -- took a more aggressive stance in seeking to eliminate, rather than contain, al Qaeda.

"We were briefed (during the transition) on the al Qaeda threat and what the Clinton administration was doing about it," McCormack said, saying Clarke later gave Rice more ideas on taking on al Qaeda, prompting her to ask for a policy review.

"The review resulted in a comprehensive strategy approved by the principals committee on Sept. 4 to eliminate al Qaeda and deprive it of its sanctuaries," McCormack said, referring to a committee that includes the U.S. secretaries of state and defense as well as the director of the CIA.

"There was no plan that was handed over," said a White House official who asked not to be named. "The nature of the ideas that were sketched out were for a roll back of al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period.

"We're talking about apples and oranges here," the official added. "Our strategy became focused on eliminating al Qaeda, not trying to 'roll it back,"' the official added.

Time magazine also reported that while concern was mounting by last summer that a major terrorist attack against U.S. interests was imminent, no decision was made to send a Predator drone -- the best possible source of intelligence on the terror camps run by Osama bin Laden -- to fly over Afghanistan.

"The Predator sat idle from October 2000 until after September 11," Time reported.

"The Predator was not flown because we were in the final stages of developing new capabilities for it," a U.S. official told Reuters. The official declined to describe the new capabilities, which could have included arming the drone.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Monday, August 5, 2002

Quote of the Day by Mr. Bird

1 posted on 08/05/2002 5:10:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
a plan to strike at al Qaeda was developed in the final days of the Clinton administration

So why would the Clinton administration wait until their final days to develop this "aggressive" plan to strike al Qaeda when they recognized the threat as far back as 1993? It appears that Clinton/Gore were either imcompetent or not interested in national security between 1993 and 2000, or wanted to leave a little CYA on the way out of office ...

2 posted on 08/05/2002 5:23:02 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I read a bit about this so far, and as far as I can determine, the Clinton administration, particularly the NSA idiot, Sandy Berger, never developed a plan, and apparently an old Bush 1, holdover, developed some recommendations finally at the end of the 8 years of inaction by xlinton, and turned it in to Berger, who ignored it.

But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations.

Please, someone, if I have this wrong, please advise.

IMHO This is just another blowin snow job by the incompetent fools from the xlinton admin trying to defend their incompetence and blame Bush.

Even it there were a plan, Did they want Bush to bomb another apirin factory? or a few more goat herders? Bush people had to check it out.
3 posted on 08/05/2002 5:29:49 AM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Time Magazine reported on Sunday that a plan to strike at al Qaeda was developed in the final days of the Clinton administration and presented to President Bush's new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in January 2001.

A typical Clinton plan would have been, "We'll give you a presidential pardon you if you promise not to do it again."

4 posted on 08/05/2002 5:30:07 AM PDT by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This latest alibi is phonier than a $3 bill.

Fact: OBL struck the WTC not once, but twice.

The first time: February, '93. X42 treated it, not as international terrorism, but an ordinary crime.

5 posted on 08/05/2002 5:31:34 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Typical lying Clintonoids. They always revise history to cover their mistakes.
6 posted on 08/05/2002 5:33:16 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Hah, Hah, Hah...Clintoooon is still spinning! The man is despicable!
7 posted on 08/05/2002 5:33:24 AM PDT by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
Clintoooon is still spinning!

As Cal Thomas just remarked on FOXNEWS, X42 is on a campaign of self-redemption.

8 posted on 08/05/2002 5:35:06 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Rather than issuing the usual polite denials, I think Bush needs to take off the gloves for this one.

"Look, people, this report came out of the White House of confessed perjurer William Jefferson Clinton. You're damn right we wanted to fact-check it before we acted on it!"

9 posted on 08/05/2002 5:35:51 AM PDT by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
big big lie and easy to refute,just look the statements by Clinton, Sandy Berger and Maddys Notsobright right after 9-11 not one mention of a PLAN.
10 posted on 08/05/2002 5:39:17 AM PDT by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This is ridiculous, and serves mainly
to make Clinton look even
worse than he did before.
11 posted on 08/05/2002 5:41:26 AM PDT by Linda Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brbethke
Rather than issuing the usual polite denials, I think Bush needs to take off the gloves for this one.

The thing is, this "story" has ZERO credibility, just as all earlier 'BUSH-NEW!' smear campaigns (there've been several).

12 posted on 08/05/2002 5:42:20 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: linn37
Sheesh. Must be election time...
13 posted on 08/05/2002 5:47:19 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
More BS from a RAT controlled rag.
14 posted on 08/05/2002 5:47:51 AM PDT by teletech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The Bush White House denied a report on Sunday that the Clinton administration gave it an aggressive plan to take on al Qaeda that languished for eight months because of the change in presidents.

Am I to assume the Clinton Administration conceived this agressive plan to take on al Qaeda in between pardon decisions during the final days of the Clintons and that it lanquished for 8 hours during the Clinton Administration?

Am I to assume Clinton was going to be "real agressive" like WTC I, Somalia or the USS Cole attacks?

Gee did't the Bush Administration let the agressive Clinton Administration plan to reduce arsenic levels in water, signed on Clinton's last day in office, lanquish?

15 posted on 08/05/2002 5:49:17 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linn37
So...where was the plan during the Algore campaign ? Must've been quite a secret, eh ?
16 posted on 08/05/2002 5:53:03 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
What they described doesn't sound like a plan, it sounds like a musing. Y'know, what should we have for dinner: Pizza or Chinese. Clymers and whiners. V's wife.
17 posted on 08/05/2002 5:54:28 AM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ventana
Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it.
18 posted on 08/05/2002 5:56:45 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Well said.
19 posted on 08/05/2002 5:57:55 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Typical lying Clintonoids. They always revise history to cover their mistakes.

It's more than that. Remember that the klintons obstructed the Bush transition team at every turn. And that's after they spent a month trying to steal the election for Algore.

Now, eleven months after 9-11, they suddenly remember they gave this detailed plan to Bush. Did they leave it on the seat in the limo and it got overlooked?

This is about as authentic as Bill's memory of all those burning black churches in Arkansas.

20 posted on 08/05/2002 6:06:24 AM PDT by 300winmag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it.

Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

21 posted on 08/05/2002 6:09:25 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

Bingo.

22 posted on 08/05/2002 6:11:46 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I quit taking TIME seriously a long time ago. Too bad Hugh Sidey is still around to see what's become of it.
23 posted on 08/05/2002 6:17:52 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Re: #23 -- My sentiments exactly re: Hugh Sidney. He's one of the few good guys left in journalism.
24 posted on 08/05/2002 6:22:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
So why would the Clinton administration wait until their final days to develop this "aggressive" plan to strike al Qaeda when they recognized the threat as far back as 1993?

Bingo. Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?

25 posted on 08/05/2002 6:28:53 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Had there been a real plan, Clinton and the gang wouldn't have waited a year to air it. Absolutely. And Hillary and Chelsea would have capitalized on that plan rather than their lame "tax cut" story.

Good point. Chelsea would have immediately thought about that on 9/11 instead of her first thoughts after the attacks being about the tax cuts, as she claims.

26 posted on 08/05/2002 6:35:14 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush administration and became the point man on terrorism in the Clinton White House.


We wonder if Clarke, as "point man on terrorism" ever spoke to or had a meeting with Clinton or Berger, bet his work and warnings were ignored before Jan 2001.
27 posted on 08/05/2002 6:41:03 AM PDT by 11x62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This was probably the opportune time for heralding this "plan". They're hoping for a feeding frenzy during the August recess and wanted this to be the only morsel on which to chew.

I've read criticism of President Bush for the past 19 months for not giving Clinton & Co. their just due. No one would be happier than I to see them get their come-uppance, but just imagine how this "plan" ploy would play if President Bush had spent ONE MINUTE of his time exposing the garbage of the Clintons. The "plan" would be accompanied by accusations of "if he'd spent his time looking out for our security instead of investigating Clinton,etc....". I'm convinced our president chooses his course wisely.

Now, to wait for the next item in the dem arsenal and hope it is recognized for what it is.
28 posted on 08/05/2002 6:45:05 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Further, why haven't any of the news articles that I've read about this raised that painfully obvious point?

Neal Boortz has mentioned that over 90% of the mainstream media are democrats. As there are so few true investigative journalists left, today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin. They don't want to lose what paltry sums they receive for this effortless kneejerk "news" so they back the party of unlimited socialist welfare programs. I consider the media even more dangerous than Hillary! and that's pretty dangerous.

29 posted on 08/05/2002 6:54:33 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"today's reporters simply read their DNC faxes and repeat the spin"

Correct. The talking points item I've heard this morning are, "President Bush was concerned with strategic missle defense and" ....I can't remember the other item. I'm sure it'll be repeated.
30 posted on 08/05/2002 7:07:37 AM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
So, this aggressive plan was not implemented by Semenstain? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
31 posted on 08/05/2002 7:14:35 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We know this is bogus. If it were of such importance that the incoming president be informed, then why did the Clinton administration delay the NORMAL briefing of the Bush transition team until after the Florida election scam played out?

We need to ask these self-important sycophants why they didn't think this "plan" was of such magnitude involving the very safety of our country that they went outside the normal routine and did not allow Bush the courtesy of information as every other president's administration has done. Wouldn't an incoming president have benefited from knowing this earth shattering information in November and December?

How stupid do these people think we are?
32 posted on 08/05/2002 8:06:17 AM PDT by IVote2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"So, this aggressive plan was not implemented? I guess it was not a big deal then, because Clinton was the most devoted combatant ever in the war on terrorism...."

He was too busy getting ready to jump into the trenches, fight and die for Israel when Iran and/or Iraq crossed the Jordan...so much for "intelligence"!!!!

BWAHAHAHA, back!! ;)

33 posted on 08/05/2002 8:12:07 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

"this "story" has ZERO credibility"

Still.

34 posted on 03/24/2004 5:20:53 PM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brbethke
Take the gloves off harder than THAT.

During the transition, the Clinton Administration was more concerned about prying the freakin' "W's" off of keyboards than global terrorism and Osama bin Laden.

35 posted on 03/24/2004 5:25:06 PM PST by cincinnati65 (Rooting for the Panthers since 1995.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104746/posts
36 posted on 03/24/2004 5:28:21 PM PST by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: XBob
But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations.

I've been in enough bureaucracies to know that an action plan is hundreds, even thousands of pages long, has many branching decision trees, and lots of contingency plans.

37 posted on 03/24/2004 5:33:17 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Actually, Clarkes behind the scene testimony pretty much says there was a plan, but it was never carried out. At the end of the administration they reviewed the plan, and did nothing. So this is more lies again.
38 posted on 03/24/2004 5:36:08 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: windchime
Chris Matthews is Talking Points Central. Isikoff and Alter and Fineman are in the soup too. Don Imus is losing it and shilling for his boss.
39 posted on 03/24/2004 5:37:27 PM PST by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Thanks for the ping on this old thread, which I had forgotten. Apparently there has been no change, and xlintons still can't come up with anything they did, other than bomb an asperin factory and a few tents, and what I said still stands - As I said in #3:

"I read a bit about this so far, and as far as I can determine, the Clinton administration, particularly the NSA idiot, Sandy Berger, never developed a plan, and apparently an old Bush 1, holdover, developed some recommendations finally at the end of the 8 years of inaction by xlinton, and turned it in to Berger, who ignored it.

But there was no plan, no implementation, only a few unimplemented recommendations."

It only reinforces my belief that the whole xlinton administration from top to bottom was composed of absolute idiots.
40 posted on 03/24/2004 7:20:40 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Helms
"Chris Matthews is Talking Points Central."

I tolerated enough of CM to see that the August 2002 'background' transcript was mentioned.

I noticed you reposted the info on Clinton's pardon of CIA's Deutch. There IS a 'connect the dots' picture here....I can't clearly see it, but am sure it's unimaginably ugly.
41 posted on 03/24/2004 7:41:00 PM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"According to Time, the proposals were developed by Richard Clarke..."There was no plan that was handed over," said a White House official [Clarke] who asked not to be named."

I wonder if Clarke was the source for the Time article? That kind of leaking would have ruined him with Bush. Might have been reason for disciplinary action too.

42 posted on 03/25/2004 6:23:27 AM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson